Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Reviews and Recommendations
Reload this Page >

DVD Talk review of 'Waterworld' (HD DVD)

DVD Reviews and Recommendations Read, Post and Request DVD Reviews.

DVD Talk review of 'Waterworld' (HD DVD)

Old 12-12-06, 10:17 AM
  #1  
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DVD Talk review of 'Waterworld'

I read Daniel Hirshleifer's DVD review of Waterworld at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=25492 and...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only was Dances with Wolves an excellent Western and worthy of it's Oscars, Waterworld is a terrific post-apocalyse film.
Old 12-12-06, 01:22 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
This is one of those films that gets way worse reviews than it should. Folks let the big budget and subsequent studio losses affect their opinion. I wouldn't call it a great film, but it was decent.

This review seems to confuse an unlikeable character with Costner's charisma.
Old 12-12-06, 02:20 PM
  #3  
Defunct Account
 
John Sinnott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 5,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have to disagree. The movie was bad, no matter what the budget. The plot was nothing new (Mad Max on water) and there were too many plot hole to ignore, (How did the smokers refine the crude oil? Where did they get all the cigarettes? etc. etc.), and Costner's acting was pretty bad.

I'm liberal but the 'message' of the film was so heavy handed that even I thought it was too much. I can only imagine what a conservative thought.

Of course a review is only one person's opinion, but I thought Daniel was very fair in his wrtie up of the disc.

Last edited by videophile; 12-12-06 at 02:58 PM. Reason: grammer
Old 12-12-06, 02:22 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,788
Received 269 Likes on 187 Posts
I'm with Daniel and videophile. Waterworld is a stinker of monumental proportions, and Dances With Wolves is an overrated piece of crap.

The only thing that can possibly be worse would be to combine the two films. I shudder to think what that would be like.

Old 12-12-06, 02:37 PM
  #5  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Jakester
I read Daniel Hirshleifer's DVD review of Waterworld at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=25492 and...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only was Dances with Wolves an excellent Western and worthy of it's Oscars, Waterworld is a terrific post-apocalyse film.
Thank you for the insightful comments with critical analysis to back it up.

Originally Posted by Feathers McGraw
This is one of those films that gets way worse reviews than it should. Folks let the big budget and subsequent studio losses affect their opinion. I wouldn't call it a great film, but it was decent.

This review seems to confuse an unlikeable character with Costner's charisma.
Believe me, the budget or the losses it took had nothing to do with my opinion of it as a film. And as I mentioned in the review, some people have made very successful careers out of playing unlikeable characters, but Costner just didn't have what it took.
Old 12-12-06, 08:27 PM
  #6  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
I'm with Daniel and videophile. Waterworld is a stinker of monumental proportions, and Dances With Wolves is an overrated piece of crap.

The only thing that can possibly be worse would be to combine the two films. I shudder to think what that would be like.


You're referring to Il Costino...my favorite film!!!
Old 12-13-06, 03:48 AM
  #7  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Old 12-13-06, 06:01 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
when they showed waterworld on tv. it was an extended edition. it was a much better version of the movie.

Jacob
Old 12-13-06, 09:08 AM
  #9  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jakester
I read Daniel Hirshleifer's DVD review of Waterworld at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=25492 and...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only was Dances with Wolves an excellent Western and worthy of it's Oscars, Waterworld is a terrific post-apocalyse film.
It's an HD DVD review, by the way.

I personally don't think the movie is horrible but it's not something I want to own. Jeanne Tripplehorn is nice to look at, though, until he cuts her hair.

Last edited by Bareit; 12-13-06 at 09:19 AM.
Old 12-13-06, 11:26 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,788
Received 269 Likes on 187 Posts
Originally Posted by Bareit
It's an HD DVD review, by the way.
When you start a thread from the link in a review, that portion of the post pre-fills automatically.

This is something we should probably look into.

Last edited by Josh Z; 12-13-06 at 06:23 PM.
Old 12-13-06, 11:50 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,408
Received 336 Likes on 251 Posts
I don't have a problem bashing WATERWORLD (one of the few movies in my life I actually walked out of), but Dances With Wolves is a GOOD movie. Perhaps overrated by some, but nowhere near "abysmal".
Old 12-13-06, 12:32 PM
  #12  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
When you start a thread from the link in a review, that portion of the post pre-fills authomatically.

This is something we should probably look into.
Oh, I see. [Johnny Carson] I did not know that. [/Johnny Carson]

Last edited by Bareit; 12-13-06 at 12:46 PM.
Old 12-13-06, 01:50 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: U.S
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Feathers McGraw
This is one of those films that gets way worse reviews than it should. Folks let the big budget and subsequent studio losses affect their opinion. I wouldn't call it a great film, but it was decent.

This review seems to confuse an unlikeable character with Costner's charisma.
Agreed.
Old 12-14-06, 12:22 PM
  #14  
JM1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, it's a decent enough movie - derivative sure, but well made and exciting.

Unfortunately it was being made when the press decided they would start a backlash agains Costner for whatever reason, and when he started making it they were all over it looking for fault.

I can remember the press reporting at the ridiculous expense of ferrying the cast out and back every day to the specially built floating set they made, and how it must be costing loads of money therefore the film will never make it's costs back therefore it will be a flop.

It was pegged as a flop even before it opened and that's grossly unfair - given a fair crack of the whip and a decent response this film could have done a whole lot better at the box office.

As someone else already mentioned, all the money is up there on screen, Costner and Reynolds went for a very realistic look and shot in the ocean as much as they could, and I think it shows.

A much maligned movie, nowhere near deserving of it's unfortunate reputation.
Old 12-14-06, 12:51 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,788
Received 269 Likes on 187 Posts
Originally Posted by JM1
Unfortunately it was being made when the press decided they would start a backlash agains Costner for whatever reason, and when he started making it they were all over it looking for fault.

I can remember the press reporting at the ridiculous expense of ferrying the cast out and back every day to the specially built floating set they made, and how it must be costing loads of money therefore the film will never make it's costs back therefore it will be a flop.
While it's true that the press was (perhaps unfairly) jumping on a bandwagon to trash the film before it ever came out, it's also true that the movie has a brain-dead moronic script and is deserving of every bit of scorn it eventually received.
Old 12-14-06, 05:01 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,077
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
When you start a thread from the link in a review, that portion of the post pre-fills automatically.

This is something we should probably look into.
Yes. It makes sense here, but not if it was a BD review.
Old 12-16-06, 05:59 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
if anyone who upgraded to the HD version wants to get rid of their DTS dvd let me know.
Old 12-16-06, 08:14 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: in the stacks
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I tell myself I like Waterworld the same way I tell myself I like The Postman, but then I watch them again and wonder why I lied....I like parts of each, and in my mind, I condense the movies so that all the good parts are squished together into a 25-minute film, but when they're reconstituted into the full feature, I don't like them much...
Old 12-16-06, 11:46 PM
  #19  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
I don't have a problem bashing WATERWORLD (one of the few movies in my life I actually walked out of), but Dances With Wolves is a GOOD movie. Perhaps overrated by some, but nowhere near "abysmal".
Dances With Wolves is probably one of my most hated films. It's just as much of a monument to Costner's ego as Waterworld is, but since it has the trappings of a western and favorable overtones towards Native Americans (who I have no problem with, personally), it gets treated as some kind of classic. And my god, the length! Leone's westerns might have been long, but they also happened to be some of the best films the genre has ever offered. Dances With Wolves is the work of a bloated filmmaker, and I can't believe he actually had the gall to make an extended edition.
Old 12-17-06, 12:54 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Dances With Wolves ....is the work of a bloated filmmaker, and I can't believe he actually had the gall to make an extended edition.
So is Star Wars!

And if we are going to talk about bloated filmmakers Spielberg is probably the biggest of them all!!

Ciao,
Pro-B
Old 12-18-06, 08:55 PM
  #21  
Defunct Account
 
John Sinnott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 5,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
So is Star Wars!

And if we are going to talk about bloated filmmakers Spielberg is probably the biggest of them all!!

Ciao,
Pro-B
Actually, we were talking about Costner in general and Waterworld in particular. But a Star Wars thread crap is always welcome....
Old 12-18-06, 11:53 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by videophile
Actually, we were talking about Costner in general and Waterworld in particular.


So was I! And no, Dances With Wolves and Costner's ego were brought into the discussion as well!

I was anything but threadcrapping. Sorry you took it that way!

My post was meant to counter the fact that in this thread there was a notable shift from discussing the pros-cons of Waterworld to describing how big Costner's ego was/is. If throwing in Star Wars in the mix and the fact that there were different cuts/versions its creator approved to suggest that this is not atypical for Hollywood directors is threadcrapping...so such (threadcraps) are probably the remarks made above about Leone or Mad Max. Though they seem to be used in a slightly different context!

Sorry we have to disagree on this one!

Pro-B
Old 12-19-06, 08:27 AM
  #23  
Defunct Account
 
John Sinnott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 5,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry I took it the wrong way. Let me explain why I did. When a person's first post in a thread doesn't mention the movies or directors being talked about and just cuts down "Star Wars" (or "Lord of the Rings" or any other film with a rabid following) it sounds like thread baiting.

Of course the differance between the SW comments and the Mad Max or Leone referances is that they were passing asides in the context of a post, not the entire post. If someone posted "Krzysztof Kieslowski and Bernardo Bertolucci's films are horrid!" They could make the link that we were talking about films that people though were poorly made, but it still wouldn't add anything to the discussion at hand, just derail it.

You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. No hard feelings.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.